Bokeh example

[Spearhead]

I think what this discussion shows is that there's no agreement even on what something looks like. For example, according to posters here, mine "pops" and "doesn't pop." It also is "hard" and "flat." These are contradictions, similar comments are made on other photos. Before there can be any discussion of the factors, there has to be some agreement on what the image looks like, and it doesn't appear that we're anywhere close to that.

[stephen_jones4]

Jeff - Sorry, I meant "hard" in the sense of "harsh" - I think "flat" and "harsh" are absolutely compatible. Hope that's clearer now.

[icuneko]

<...there has to be some agreement on what the image looks like, and it doesn't appear that we're anywhere close to that.>

 

 

Relevant point. Visual perceptions, among others, are hard to objectify and denote in art. Maybe that's why some folks tend to stick to Lp/mm, MTFs, etc.

 

 

Around, around the mulberry bush...

[michael s.]

"Pop" as in ... Peter piper popped a pack of pickled pictures.

 

Jeff's correct. No agreement here yet as to:

 

i) what "pop" means ? or

 

ii) which photo(s) exhibit "pop" ?

 

Until we have that, I'm afraid we're talking past one another on this subject.

[kevin m.]

I thought that "pop" was whatever gave the image the illusion of three-dimensionality. I think both the initial pic and Rich's pic 'pop' more due to the lighting rather than any particular lens characteristic. Both Jeff and Peter's pics seem to rely more on shallow depth of field, via a big aperture, I'd guess, and the effect looks quite different to me.

[icuneko]

After reading all the above comments and seeing different photos, I'll amend my connotation of "pop" in D. Salamander's Rawalpindi picture to "poplite." Pop does seem to convey much more of a sense of acute separation between foreground subject and background whatever, a sense of really jumping out from the background. It seems as if pop has the subject layered over the background as if two slides or negatives are superimposed on top of one another--one of subject(s), two of background.

[abufletcher]

OK. Here's my attempt at nailing down the terminilogy:

 

1. Good bokeh: An inherent technicalcharacteistic of a lens to render OOF

focus areas with a minimum of artifacts, including little half-moons and

squiggly patterns, The bokeh characteristics of a given lens are most

noticeable at maximum aperture and/or in OOF highlights. Bokeh is not a

photographic technique. Good bokeh is often described as "creamy."

 

2. Pop: A subjective impression of 3-dimensionality where one or more

elements of a photo appear to jump out from other elements. Pop may be

accomplished via selective focus and/or differential lighting. Pop is distinct

from the use of a wide aperture on a telephoto lens to blur the areas

surrounding a subject. Pop seems most apparent when the background is

only slightly OOF. The pop effect can bee seen on both wide angle and

telephoto images. Pop may be more of a lucky coincidence than a

photographic technique.

 

Selective focus: A specific photographic technique whereby the

photographer's skilled choice of aperture, lens, and distance creates a

restricted plane of focus most commonly (though not always) placed at the

same distance as the main subject. Selective focus is easier to achieve with

telephotos (or more strictly at the distances telephotos are typically used

from). For this reason consumer digicams with extremely short focal length

lenses often have a difficult time acheiving selective focus.

 

David's and Rich's photos display the pop effect. Jeff's and Peter's photos

show the use of selective focus. And the shot of the lizard (as well as Peter's

shot) nicely illustrate good technical bokeh.

 

BTW, Eric, I have no reason to doubt that David's shot is on film as he claims.

As far as I can remember, every photo David has ever posted has been with

an M6TTL and either a 35 or 24 Leica lens (on 100G slide film). Remember

as well, that David's shot was taken just prior to a dust storm and the dust in

the air is probably responsible for how these lights look not to mention the

"pop."

 

Peter, had you used a slightly smaller aperture and a slightly different point of

view you might have been able to show both the dog and the fact that the

black blobs are indeed cows. You could still have maintained selective focus

on the woman. As is, nothing in the OOF areas of your image (other than the

vague impression that this is a field) adds to the "story" of this image.

[abufletcher]

Hmmm...is that a woman in the photo? I just sort of assumed...

[abufletcher]

Oh, and Johnson, I'd say your first photo shows the pop effect.

[EricM]

Peter, have you found the large file of that image yet?

[Spearhead]

<i>Pop may be more of a lucky coincidence</i><p>

 

That assumes someone finds it desirable in a particular photo, which it may very well not be.

[abufletcher]

Peter, huh? What exactly was I assuming beyond my ken? That you didn't

also take other photos that day? What does this second picture (which is

nice) have to do with my comments on your first photo? I see the dog and the

cattle just fine in the second picture but where are they in the first. What I'm

saying is that it may have been possible to combine the story-telling potential

of BOTH of these photos into a single photo by choosing a different aperture

and viewpoint. Still it is your photo so It's your choice. But I don't have to like

it.

 

And if you have to assume knowledge of farming/ranching practices on the

part of your viewers (like whether these are lady cows or boy cows or why that

might matter) perhaps you should only show this photo to other farmers/

ranchers.

[abufletcher]

Jeff, yeah, I suppose "pop" could pop up at the wrong time. I suppose the

way that 3-D effects in movies can look kind of hokey sometimes.

[EricM]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2920930-lg.jpg"></center>

[Spearhead]

<i> I suppose the way that 3-D effects in movies can look kind of hokey sometimes.</i><p>

 

It's not that, it's that photos are 2-D by nature and lots of them look fine as 2-D. For example, all of <a href="http://www.whiteroomgallery.com/artists/daido_moriyama/gallery.html">these photos</a> are in museums around the world, and very few of them have even a hint of "pop."

[icuneko]

Eric's portrait of the finger-pointing gentleman has good light, good "pop" and--or should I say but--surreal boheh. The latter doesn't appeal to me while the former two do. Thus ...

 

Thus what? Thus it may be time for someone to start a new post called

"Great Light," as someone wrote above.

[EricM]

"or should I say but--surreal boheh"

 

it is gross. it's digital. the same Nikkor lenses on my D70 are completely different than on an F body. the other attribute of digital i find gross is oof green and red lights.

[abufletcher]

Eric, it was nice to see a friendly face in the midst of all this tenseness!

Thanks. I like this photo and don't care at all about whether it does or doesn't

have pop or good bokeh or whatever. It's a good friendly portait -- and that's

what the viewer will notice first, last, and always.

 

And Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that all great photos HAD to have pop, or that

pop in and of itself makes a great photo. Photos with this subjective 3-D effect

seem to be fairly rare. I can't remember seeing more than a handful myself.

It's just a neat effect that might be useful. Clearly there are many other ways

to build a great photograph.

 

And, finally, to S. Link, thanks for starting this thread, it helped me work out, for

myself at any rate, some confusions I had.

[abufletcher]

Peter, fair enough. Make sure you do the same (and not just about my

photos).

[EricM]

Traffic lights by digital. Do this once, and you'll recognize it else where.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2921060-lg.jpg"></center>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2921058-lg.jpg"></center>

[abufletcher]

Eric, that sure looks the same. I guess I'm just a lot more trusting. David said

it was film so I believed him. Also I have been in dust storms in Kuwait and

Oman and know how weird the light can get.

[EricM]

Donald, this negative attribute has ruined so many of my pics. Also, notice the shape in some of the lights that aren't blown out completely? They're not round. They're octagon. Now look at the crop you submitted way up in the beginning. Kind of similiar? I've never seen Leica glass, or any great glass for that matter, provide nothing but round. Sometimes it mimics the blades in the lens, but not in this distinct fashion.

[abufletcher]

And you'll not presume to offer it to anyone else. It's a deal!

 

But then I did assume that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the effect

that bokeh and other OOF effects had on photographs. I didn't realize that

your photos were immune to all critizism.

[EricM]

"And you'll not presume to offer it to anyone else. It's a deal!"

 

wait a minute. Peter can say whatever he wants about my photos.

[abufletcher]

Here's an example of bokeh supposedly (I'm assuming this website is telling

the truth) from an Nikkor 35/.1.4 at f4. Maybe this lens doesn't qualify as

"great glass" but it was shot on film (again I assume that's true) and I see lots

of little octogons here.

 

http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.php

 

****

 

Well, Peter is no photographic god as far as I can tell so if he sees fit to

critique my photos or those of others -- which he seems to do frequently -- I'll

continue to feel free to critique his. Though honestly, I don't think I'd bother.<div></div>